The Problem of “God-talk” in Biology Textbooks

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 16, 2019

Intelligent Design, Religion, science education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Why the textbook zombie can’t just die. From a recent article on science education:

Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
(Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses).
In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties.
In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay.
In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in
Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. (paywall)
Steve Dilley and Nicholas Tafacory, “Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t” at Communications of the Blyth Institute

See also: Zombies march for science

Accredited Times Offers The Scoop On Jon Wells And Zombie Science

and

Zombie Science

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

On that topic one of the reasons why I never had any issues with evolution is that all the biology books and classes that I ever went through never mentioned any kind of Theistic undertone, They really did a good job just separating and of course that was close to 26 years ago and I want you to know they definitely taught evolution one might say it was the only game in town and I grew up believing that the appendix was absolutely useless (now it’s not) But I also I never thought that that was an proof against God When I returned back to school the books were entirely different and often there were comments made like a creator would not designed a sub optimal part It’s one of the reasons what motivated me to start posting on sites like this But I agree completely and full heartedly that all scientific text should be completely devoid of Theistic claims, one way or another and should just lay down the evidence and allow people to make an educated decision. And I think that was a huge factor of why I didn’t become a raging atheist and I remained Catholic Was many of the text books I read were just information and mechanics when it came to biology I was always incredibly fascinated with these things because of how these mechanics would work and how amazing it was that these functions would arise naturally It wasn’t until I started hearing things like dawkins/Maher screaming at me, that such and such wouldn’t design this and as long as there’s an explanation there’s no need for that and you are dumb and violent for being religious. Then I started having problems with my faith and science And I remember the exact time that this little drama started and Dawkins was the first cause, I wouldn’t even have thought twice about the war between science and religion if it wasn’t for him because I didn’t think there was one that’s not how I was raised So there was never a conflict I could do science and math and feel comfortable with myself while feeling comfortable with my religion is well It is quite literally his fault I hate the current culture and I started to loath science because these people wielded it like a weapon against my faith, And I have to make an honest effort to not allow myself to hate science because of them, and it is quite squarely because of him, he was literally my first cause. That’s why I make a very clear distinction between anti-Theists and Atheists. I never met an atheist that really cared that I believed in God I met tons of anti-Theists That always asked me why I was so smart but yet believed in God and I always found that remarkably insulting.AaronS1978_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Moreover, Charles Darwin's book itself, the Origin of Species, instead of being filled with experimentation and mathematics, is replete with bad liberal theology.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
To this day, as the authors in the OP made clear, Darwinists are still very much dependent of bad liberal theology, instead of any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
That Darwinists would still today be so dependent on such a faulty theological foundation based in bad liberal theology, in order to try to give force to their arguments, is, contrary to what Darwinists may believe, actually another compelling argument that drives my point home that basic Theistic presuppositions are necessary for us to even be able to coherently practice science in the first place. Darwinists, with their vital dependence on bad liberal theology in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
“In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).
bornagain77_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Seversky states that,
Scientific textbooks should not contain theological references at all unless it is to answer specific theistic claims about the science.
And yet the authors in the OP found that theology was essential to arguments made in the biology textbooks. Go figure. This finding should not be all that surprising since all of science, every discipline of it, is dependent on basic theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the world and of our 'made in the image of God' minds to be able to comprehend that rational intelligibility of the universe:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray - August 14, 2014 Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature. The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/the_truth_about_science_and_religion.html The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/
Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it. In establishing the fact that Darwinists use bad liberal theology to try to establish their science, it is interesting to point out that Charles Darwin’s degree was in liberal theology and was not in mathematics. nor any other field that would be considered essential for founding of a brand new branch of science.
Charles Darwin - The Rest of the Story Excerpt: Charles Darwin received a general degree in Theology from Cambridge, graduating in 1831.,,, he almost became an Anglican Minister and his degree was in Theology. http://creationanswers.net/biographies/CDarwin.htm
In fact, the liberal ‘unscientific’ Anglican clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ clergy reacted against Darwin's theory:
Reactions to Origin of Species “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species
Pastor Joe Boot and Dr. Cornelius Hunter have both done work exposing the faulty liberal theology that underlays Darwinian thought..
The Descent of Darwin (The Faulty Theological Foundation of Darwinism) - Pastor Joe Boot - video - 16:30 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996 The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – article http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/ezrainstitute_ca/bank/pageimages/jubilee_2010_spring.pdf Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil - 2001 Excerpt: (Cornelius Hunter) shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution. Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118
bornagain77_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Sev
Scientific textbooks should not contain theological references at all unless it is to answer specific theistic claims about the science.
I don’t think they should contain theological references at all. I don’t remember my biology and evolution texts mentioning anything about theology unless it was a history text or a philosophy text. For the same reason that I don’t remember my geology texts talking about Noah’s flood or a young earth theory. Or my cosmology texts talking about the earth being created in six days.Brother Brian_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Scientific textbooks should not contain theological references at all unless it is to answer specific theistic claims about the science. And we should not forget the context of a Christian creationist movement bent on inserting their dogma into the science classrooms. A movement which, although rebuffed in the courts, has still succeeded to the extent that, in one survey, around 14% of high school biology teachers openly taught creationism in blatant defiance of the law and the Constitution.Seversky_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Casey Luskin did an analysis of biology textbooks several years ago as a DI project. It was well-researched and excellent, exposing many of the issues these authors raise. That analysis was ridiculed and ignored. Now, years later these academics discover that there is an intractable problem for biology textbooks, saying the same thing as the Luskin analysis said. So, ID was correct on that one, contributing valuable research to the work of science.
We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties.
The authors, publishers and scientific consultants on these textbooks over the past 40+ years wrote with a theological bias. This was done either deliberately, or through complete ignorance and blindness to the atheistic/theological prejudice of the biological community. This analysis proves it. None of those biology textbooks even reconsidered their own ill-informed and inappropriate theological views. Authors continually denied that such a thing as theological bias in biology even existed. But now it is shown that Darwinism has this problem which cannot be avoided or overcome, obviously, because Darwinian thought is a theological proposition itself and always was one. So again, these are things that ID has always exposed. The scientific community denied and ridiculed ID for that. I remember a biologist telling me once that "scientists don't write the textbooks so you can't blame the scientific community for the theological bias". But as these researchers point out, biologists themselves, not just textbook writers, cannot solve this problem. I conclude that ID was correct, and ID-opponents were not just slightly-mistaken, but they were (and continue to be) totally blind, ignorant or just outright deceptive (lying) about what they publish and teach in the name of biology.Silver Asiatic_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

as to:
On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses).
Well that blows the entire "God of the Gaps" objection out of the water, which happens to be one of the top two arguments that 'elite' atheists try to use.
Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists - November 8, 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,, What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,, The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars. https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists/
bornagain77_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply